It really infuriates me, to say the least. With Bogut and Lee, they should be a good passing team, not a team that turns the ball over. And San Antonio killed us off of points off of turnovers. So many times Curry will just throw a lazy pass and it will get intercepted by the opposition. Is this a maturity issue? When will he stop throwing so many lazy passes that just get telegraphed every time?

You take the good with the bad with Curry. If he's gonna have the ball in his hands a lot, he's gonna have nights where he won't miss, but if his jumper isn't falling and you have an athletic defender on him shutting down the drive, the opposition can literally just lurk the passing lanes because Curry isn't exactly the crispest passer. And Jarrett Jack has Russell Westbrook syndrome; he'll drive the lane, get caught in the air with no backup plan after shooting, and throw the ball wildly towards the top of the key, which teams can prey on.

The majority of Lee and Bogut's turnovers are offensive fouls setting tough screens, but you'll live with that. So long as the majority of their picks are legit, you don't mind that. If they become Biedrins and foul as often as they screen, you get worried.

I disagree with 32 here. Curry is a great passer, especially in pick and roll. It's not his fault that due to clumsy offensive sets with non-scoring center he is taken this aspect of his game away. Lee is strugling with Bogut on offense last two games. Simply because pick 'n' roll is taken away from them. With Bogut's lack of mobility and shooting touch Lee is forced to operate in a much tighter space, and so the passes have to be be even more exact for teams can play passing lanes with one eye on Bogut.As for Paul, the dude had and has pick 'n' roll monsters on his teams, sometimes he just can throw it in the air for grabs - Chandler, Jordan, Griffin can all catch it and dunk it and that they do. Raymond Felton can torch oppositions by throwing random alley-oops for Chandler, I don't think he is anywhere as good a passer as Curry.Yes, defense has been better for stretches with Bogut, but offense has been stagnant due to overcrowding in the paint, free throw key zone. We don't spread the floor enough to punish oppositions and no one needs to double team Bogut, so yeah, our offense too often looks like muddling through clay.Untill Bogut is able a way to run pick and roll letting Lee cut, lurk for open 15 footers or demand double teams in low post our offense will be stagnant and turnover prone in a bad way. Not like Thunder's who turn the ball in transition, or turnovers of Nuggets. Turnovers in transition are creative turnovers, turnovers due to lack of spacing are due to failed design of offense.

martin wrote:I disagree with 32 here. Curry is a great passer, especially in pick and roll. It's not his fault that due to clumsy offensive sets with non-scoring center he is taken this aspect of his game away. Lee is strugling with Bogut on offense last two games. Simply because pick 'n' roll is taken away from them. With Bogut's lack of mobility and shooting touch Lee is forced to operate in a much tighter space, and so the passes have to be be even more exact for teams can play passing lanes with one eye on Bogut.As for Paul, the dude had and has pick 'n' roll monsters on his teams, sometimes he just can throw it in the air for grabs - Chandler, Jordan, Griffin can all catch it and dunk it and that they do. Raymond Felton can torch oppositions by throwing random alley-oops for Chandler, I don't think he is anywhere as good a passer as Curry.Yes, defense has been better for stretches with Bogut, but offense has been stagnant due to overcrowding in the paint, free throw key zone. We don't spread the floor enough to punish oppositions and no one needs to double team Bogut, so yeah, our offense too often looks like muddling through clay.Untill Bogut is able a way to run pick and roll letting Lee cut, lurk for open 15 footers or demand double teams in low post our offense will be stagnant and turnover prone in a bad way. Not like Thunder's who turn the ball in transition, or turnovers of Nuggets. Turnovers in transition are creative turnovers, turnovers due to lack of spacing are due to failed design of offense.

So...when Curry throws an intercept pass, that's Bogut's fault and Lee having one bad game with his shooting is also because of Bogut??? Global warming - Bogut. Starvation in 3rd world countries – Bogut. Terrorism - Bogut

Not sure how you can make the argument Bogut makes Lee worse when Lee has been starting with Festus and Beans. I am not sure how you can make the argument is worse with Bogut on the floor when the alternative is Festus or Beans.

I don't think he's saying Bogut is a horrible player, it's more of a floor spacing issue, amiright?

Curry has the capability of being a good passer, he's shown it plenty of times. But I think he likes pts more than assists. This has helped the W's cuz he's a great shooter, but it also has hindered them at times. I'd gladly trade Curry + expirer for someone like Deron Williams (great passer, scorer who gets into the paint, decent D). Pipe dream tho probably.

No need to employ overemphatic metaphors, Ringo.It's not Bogut's fault that he is slow, non-shooter, exclusively low post center that is not good at pick n roll in his current form. Warriors struggled for big parts of the season to start the games on offensive end - to start the season with Bogut, then with Ezeli or Biedrins besides Lee. They would usually play catch up with Ezeli being replaced by Landry. With Landry spacing the floor, Warriors first set offense was high-pick and roll with Lee. Lee bathes in space, his game is tailored on having lots of space to operate for he can use his smarts to outdribble or otherwise outplay his opponent. e also can pass if Landry's man leaves him. It simply creates faster/better ball movement. He is not the most explosive and athletic palyer so he struggles when there is less space and he can't beat his man to the basket, obviously with our not so good offensive centers their man can help on doubling Lee and he is forced to go against double teams off the dribble or shoot a 17-18 footer.Bogut's current lack of speed or efficient post play is masked by him being better passer, that's where he is better than Ezeli, but since warriors want to make him a force on offense and run a lot of the offense through him, they simply have no choice but post him up and live with that - if teams have decent big men, he is nullified and without double team comming spacing is much worse. Lee in this scenario is ripped off his best weapon - high pick 'n' roll. Strangely, it's not Bogut who has to adjust to playing with Lee, but Lee. The same was true when warriors struggled to score the ball during the start of the season. Lee has never played in centercentric ( ) offense in his career, it's a challenge for him. On offense he has to find ways to be effective without pick'n'roll and with less space, on defense he has to learn to guard spread fours, both Anderson and to lesser extent Bonner during that decisive Spurs separation run caused him problems.In offense (and defense) that is being orientated around Bogut, Lee finds himself displaced.It's adjusting period for him.Will it yield desired results (as in making wariors significantly better), remains to be seen.

Also, re: curry's turnovers, remember - the dude plays crazy minutes playing two positions: one requires him to create space and find cracks in defenses, the other - run through multiple screens to shoot threes, and he has best perimeter defenders on him most of the time. And he plays practically every minute of the game. With Barnes being inconsitent, Bogut (Ezeli, Biedrins) not much help, the fact that we were able to score over 100+ for most of the season is only a proof how essentially strong the small guy is.Take Curry out of this team, and you score 90 at average.Teams plan for Curry, they don't for Lee or Thompson and even less so for Bogut (Ezeli etc.)

To reply more clearly to BF - warrios when they played ezeli or biedrins have no plays for them (well, few for ezeli untill they figured out that it's prettty much the end of possesion with his stone hands), the offense was centered on curry and lee running pick'n'roll, transition basketball and quick shots off the dribble early in shot clock. With Bogut they do les of that, they try to run longer plays or simply post up. The offensive focus shifted. So it's nothing out of the ordinary to suggest that Lee's numbers will go down and are down due to this change in startegy.

They have ran maybe one iso post up for Bogut a game. Bogut helps the offense because it spaces the floor. Festus/Beans makes the outside harder to get an outside shot off. And Lee's numbers have not even been hurt by Bogut. They are almost the same as they were before.

I don't see how you can make those points, except for poetic license. There were two game plans re: bogut and our other centers on offense - for example you could go as far as last season and look at how many games were started by posting up andris biedrins that resulted in exactly zero offensive gain. The same was done with Ezeli this year, to the same result. Difference being that Ezeli was also involved in pick 'n' roll to no success. Bogut when he came back was used a bit differently - in high post that resulted in some nice passing, especially in toronto games, if i'm not mistaken. But on a larger scale it didn't work ourt well, so they moved him to the post, and if you want to keep defenses honest, you have to run your offense through the post when your center is not fast enough for cutting in pick 'n' roll situations for drop offs etc. Where warriors have been moderately successful is against teams with less skilled/smaller front court players in these situations. The two better defending teams in san antonio and bulls ate this offense for lunch. There was not enough space for them to operate, and while Bogut could be said to have played a bit better for his level at this point, this was nowhere near to a transcendental impact we were promised. Lee, coincidently, was worse than his average in those games. Against San Antonio we have shot no threes (or was it one or two) in first quarter, you tell me why a team with best three point shooter and overall percentage, does that. I don't think it's because they think two pointers are better. I would assume that it was difficult to get them off in our set offense.

Also, there is a nice article on Grantland about advanced statistics with one bit talking about pick 'n' rolls and how warriors use relatively few of them, but converge on a very good rate. I know why they use very few - they have 2,5 pick 'n' roll players in Curry, Lee and Landry and our set offense with slow or/and non-scoring centers dont' allow for more of them to be run. I also assume that the sucessful rate of finishing in pick 'n' roll is because both Steph and Lee are very good at it, like much better than most of the teams. Now can you run a pick 'n' roll when your center is clogging the lane? No. Why would anyone on opposing defense extend farhther from the basket with our center in, when our centers can't shoot or cut, of if they (Ezeli can cut) can, can't catch a ball and finish? It's nothing strange that Lee gets caught in the air and has his shot blocked with two opposing bigs circling him.

Again, with Bogut out we played Landry and Lee a lot together, that allowed for more spacing. Even if we assume that Landry's drop off in performance had nothing to do with Bogut's arrival, the fact that center minutes got higher overall and our offensive struggles (we score 5 less points since Bogut's return) point to the fact that we space less, we take less shots and the tempo is slower.Whether it's good or bad, depends on how our defense will or has improved to account for those curbed points.

In a way, we remodifying our style of play due to Bogut. We are not building on early success of our game.

There's not enough data to tell whether it will be better, same or worse in its results, but I don't think there can be no legitimate concerns.The fact that Bogut produces something from center position is only so heartwarming since we have had zeros or close to there. The fact that for him to produce there we have to change our game also remains quite obvious, and whether this change is for better or worse, does not depend on how much Bogut produces, but how this production relates to the rest of team's performance.I won't be here fuckgeralding on every possesion Bogut does something good as if this was something never fathomed in a basketball world.

32 wrote:Curry is a natural SG. But, to his credit, he's made the transition to point better than 99% of players out there who try.

I think in this era of basketball, its really hard to put a label on a lot of these guards. There just aren't a lot, if any, pure point guards out there anymore like a Jason Kidd or Rajon Rondo. Derrick Rose, John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Russell Westbrook, Brandan Jennings and Tony Parker are all scoring point guards like Curry. To a certain extent, so are guys like Paul and Williams. Deron Williams was a shooting guard at Illinois with Dee Brown being the point guard and he made an excellent transition to be an NBA point guard. I think Curry is doing that as well, although not as immediate as Williams. At 25 years old, Curry still can adjust and I think he will. He'll have to sacrifice a few of his shots and get a few more assists to do so.

martin wrote:I don't see how you can make those points, except for poetic license. There were two game plans re: bogut and our other centers on offense - for example you could go as far as last season and look at how many games were started by posting up andris biedrins that resulted in exactly zero offensive gain. The same was done with Ezeli this year, to the same result. Difference being that Ezeli was also involved in pick 'n' roll to no success. Bogut when he came back was used a bit differently - in high post that resulted in some nice passing, especially in toronto games, if i'm not mistaken. But on a larger scale it didn't work ourt well, so they moved him to the post, and if you want to keep defenses honest, you have to run your offense through the post when your center is not fast enough for cutting in pick 'n' roll situations for drop offs etc. Where warriors have been moderately successful is against teams with less skilled/smaller front court players in these situations. The two better defending teams in san antonio and bulls ate this offense for lunch. There was not enough space for them to operate, and while Bogut could be said to have played a bit better for his level at this point, this was nowhere near to a transcendental impact we were promised. Lee, coincidently, was worse than his average in those games. Against San Antonio we have shot no threes (or was it one or two) in first quarter, you tell me why a team with best three point shooter and overall percentage, does that. I don't think it's because they think two pointers are better. I would assume that it was difficult to get them off in our set offense.

Also, there is a nice article on Grantland about advanced statistics with one bit talking about pick 'n' rolls and how warriors use relatively few of them, but converge on a very good rate. I know why they use very few - they have 2,5 pick 'n' roll players in Curry, Lee and Landry and our set offense with slow or/and non-scoring centers dont' allow for more of them to be run. I also assume that the sucessful rate of finishing in pick 'n' roll is because both Steph and Lee are very good at it, like much better than most of the teams. Now can you run a pick 'n' roll when your center is clogging the lane? No. Why would anyone on opposing defense extend farhther from the basket with our center in, when our centers can't shoot or cut, of if they (Ezeli can cut) can, can't catch a ball and finish? It's nothing strange that Lee gets caught in the air and has his shot blocked with two opposing bigs circling him.

Again, with Bogut out we played Landry and Lee a lot together, that allowed for more spacing. Even if we assume that Landry's drop off in performance had nothing to do with Bogut's arrival, the fact that center minutes got higher overall and our offensive struggles (we score 5 less points since Bogut's return) point to the fact that we space less, we take less shots and the tempo is slower.Whether it's good or bad, depends on how our defense will or has improved to account for those curbed points.

In a way, we remodifying our style of play due to Bogut. We are not building on early success of our game.

There's not enough data to tell whether it will be better, same or worse in its results, but I don't think there can be no legitimate concerns.The fact that Bogut produces something from center position is only so heartwarming since we have had zeros or close to there. The fact that for him to produce there we have to change our game also remains quite obvious, and whether this change is for better or worse, does not depend on how much Bogut produces, but how this production relates to the rest of team's performance.I won't be here fuckgeralding on every possesion Bogut does something good as if this was something never fathomed in a basketball world.

You are wrong if you think Bogut makes us worse offensively. And you are wrong if you think Bogut ruins spacing on the floor.

32 wrote:Curry is a natural SG. But, to his credit, he's made the transition to point better than 99% of players out there who try.

I think in this era of basketball, its really hard to put a label on a lot of these guards. There just aren't a lot, if any, pure point guards out there anymore like a Jason Kidd or Rajon Rondo. Derrick Rose, John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Russell Westbrook, Brandan Jennings and Tony Parker are all scoring point guards like Curry. To a certain extent, so are guys like Paul and Williams. Deron Williams was a shooting guard at Illinois with Dee Brown being the point guard and he made an excellent transition to be an NBA point guard. I think Curry is doing that as well, although not as immediate as Williams. At 25 years old, Curry still can adjust and I think he will. He'll have to sacrifice a few of his shots and get a few more assists to do so.

Touche, BAH, +1.

Although Rose, Wall, Irving, and Parker are all natural point guards, IMO. The fact that they can score off their tremendous isolation skills doesn't quite phase me, as Paul is equally capable in a one-on-one setting, as was Nash in his day. I view Curry more along the lines of Jennings, Westbrook, and Williams; a player who had every intention of being a SG in the NBA, but for other reasons have made the PG transition. Curry collects a lot of assists, there's no doubt, but his high-turnover rating puts him behind a lot of those players in terms of A2T/O.

I'm not trying to bash Curry at all; I'm just trying to rationalize Stairway's assertion. We DO have a problem with turning the ball over, but unless we find a 6'5" natural passer to take the reigns from Curry, it's not a problem we'll shed anytime soon. And I'm not complaining about it, either; I'd rather have Curry with the ball as often as possible. He might average 3 throw-aways per... But some games, he'll drop 50+. And during nights where his jumper is absolutely soaking wet, he regains an edge as a passer because the opposition has to play him so tightly.

So I suppose his style is give-and-take in terms of generating a lot of dimes because of the attention he gets, but throwing the ball away because - let's face it - he didn't grow up learning point guard skills.

That being said, I continue to believe my initial stance: he's made the transition exceedingly better than most SGs that try.